|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The I in ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: I think most of us can agree that intelligence can not be gauged by the products of that intelligence. Jar's example of the termite mound and a pile of leaves created by a gorilla is a perfects example, in that most of us think that gorillas are more intelligent than termites. The inference that ID put's forth is therefore weakened because of this. Through inference, we can conclude that the design is not a measure of intelligence. (I only say this as an example of the logic put forth by IDers)We could then infer that God is not necessarily that bright. What we run into when looking at design, especially designs in nature, is that the complexity and purpose of these designs is reached through following very simple rules. I wish I had a copy handy, but in my brief readings of Dawkin's book "Climbing Mt. Improbable" he argues that tree design (tree branching and leaf patterns) follows very simple rules. He was able to follow these rules and mutate tree designs into both useable and fanciful designs. IOW, the I in ID could have simply followed cookbook-like recipes to create the designs we see today. These same cookbook-like instructions can also be found within the innate instincts of organisms that we see today. Termites, again, are a perfect example. I argue that termites do not plan ahead, or discuss amongst themselves, about the design of the mound. Instead, they are react to environmental cues, such as pheremones and humidity, in combination with instincts to create design. By inference, we could then conclude that it is possible that the I in ID didn't even consciously design. The "I" may be reacting to outside stimulus and had no choice in the matter. My argument is that ID theory unfairly limits their inferences to human design and ignores the designs created through instinctual or rule guided design. In doing so, they mistake all design as being from an intelligence that is human-like. Using the same inference, it is possible to infer that design in nature, if not the result of naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms, does not necessarily point to a forward looking, goal oriented, conscious designer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Perhaps human-centric, or anthropomorphic? But, yes, I agree. Anyway, they still haven't given logical reasoning that there is another "human-like" intelligence anywhere in the universe. For instance, using the same inferrence technique in the following argument: Premise: Every time there is written language humans are the authors. Conclusion: Therefore, the only possible author of the Bible is humans. This isn't a conclusion that christians want, but nonetheless it is a byproduct of their same logical reasoning. Of course, I could extend the same logic to biological design: Premise: Whenever there is complex specified information, humans are the cause. Conclusion: Therefore, biological design is due to human design. Of course, this is ludicrous, but so is the ID argument. They still have no argument for extrapolating beyond human intelligence as the cause, as human intelligence is the only inferrable source for specified complexity. You must first assume, without evidence, that another intelligence exists to arrive at a conclusion that another intelligence exists. This is known as a logical fallacy.
quote: Given the advances in technology, I don't think one can really argue this. We can transfer UV illumination by transferring those light wave excitations to wavelengths we can see. Also, Behe often references proteins that are too small to observe with the naked eye, and therefore do no depend on direct reflected light. I do understand what you are saying, but I don't think it applies to the shape or physical characteristics of something on the scale of organisms on this planet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Point taken. This is why intersubjective is actually a better term than objective, since we all have the same bias due to interpretation through common mechanisms. However, without anything else to measure something to other than the experience of other human beings we loosely use "objective". I am not saying that objective evidence is actually subjective, only that humans come to the same agreement and therefore the the intersubjective becomes an agreed upon objective fact. Hope that wasn't confusing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: And thus enters the fallacy of false dichotomy. They somehow think that if they are able to construct ANY theory, supported or not, that is opposed to evolutionary mechanisms, then all they have to do to prove their theory right is to knock the legs out from underneath the opposition. Evolution being false does not make ID true, as many have said here and elsewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Our point is that if you want to learn about constructing good science then you shouldn't look at ID literature. If you want to learn about constructing pseudoscientific theories that are not testable or falsifiable, then yes, read ID literature. Our argument is that ID is not science and is at the very least a circular argument and at most christian apologetics. ID is not and can not be used to further our knowledge. It's only use is to further religious evangelism. Such is the goal of the ID proponents who want to see materialism removed from science in a move to include the Christian God in science classes. This is why you don't see non-christians or the non-religious pushing ID theory with any enthusiasm whatsoever.
quote: Because IDers and creationists use the same tactic, making their claims as circular as possible. Why is the earth and life created? Because it looks created. Why are things intelligently designed? Because they look designed. The same logical fallacy is used by both camps towards the same goal, trying to prove that God created life.
quote: You are making a huge mistake. Einstein did not INVENT or DESIGN relativity. He discovered it. The Wright brothers did not invent aerodynamics, they discovered it. By analogy, you are saying that the designer discovered that life had design but had nothing to do with it's construction. Next, before you are able to infer what the designer was like you first have to rule out all other possible non-designer causes of design. This has not been done. Evolution is still able to construct IC systems and Evolution is able to create information in genetic systems. Therefore inferring a designer is superfluous and uncalled for without first demonstrating the presence of a designer outside of the design. For instance, we don't look for a cloud designer when we see faces in clouds because we know that natural mechanisms are sufficient. The same with evolution, natural mechanisms are sufficient to create the living systems we see today. We rule out natural mechanisms when looking at Mt. Rushmore because natural mechanisms are insufficient AND we know of the designer outside of the design.
quote: And yet if a designer was absent Newton's laws would not be falsified. In the absence of a designer, Pasteur's theories would not be falsified. So my question to you is why are you changing the methodology so that it relies on the presence of a designer?
quote: And yet their creationist views did not enter their theories. Can you please show me where in their theories that they insert a creator or a designer. Could you please show me how their theories rely on the presence of a designer or creator. If Newton professed that he was an athiest would that mean his theories are wrong? Would an athiest be incapable of coming to the same conclusions as Newton? This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-27-2004 03:37 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: When an archaeologist finds a pottery fragment, does he posit that it is left over from a martian colony? Of course not. Is it because the design inference requires that the designer be known separately from the design? Or is it because the archaeology departments world wide are trying to cover up the large mounds of evidence pointing to extraterrestrial life? ID theory takes it a step further. Not only do we have a sufficient natural mechanism for creating design in reproducing organisms, which would negate the potter analogy, but the supposed designer is not evident outside of the design process. Therefore, ID strikes out at every step of the design inference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, most evolutionists have no problem with God or gods setting up natural laws that result in natural evolution. In fact, humans are now using evolution-like algorithms to design everything from radios to airplane wings. All they do is set up the selection process and allow the computer to randomly create variation in design. What results is a very functional but unguided process. However, once you move away from natural laws to supernatural events you start to move away from science.
quote: As scientists get on in years they do tend to right books about philosophy (and they usually make for a decent read as well). However, their philosophy never enters into their science.
quote: So would you say that in every puddle the water was designed to fit perfectly into the depression in the ground? Or, did the water adapt to the depression? Evolution states that organisms adapted to fit the pre-existing environment, not the other way around. You might want to use a little reason yourself. Also, there isn't one organism that I can think of that is capable of living in every environment on Earth. Therefore, Earth was not made for any one organism or species.
quote: If you can't sense the prime mover how do you know it exists? In science this doesn't work, but it does work with religious faith. This is why religion and science are separate endeavors.
quote: Chance. Is it chance that you born in the city you were born in? Let's pretend that there are 1 million hospitals in the world. Therefore the chances of being born in any certain hospital is 1 in a million. Also, there were probably about 4 billion people at the time you were born, so the chances of being born to you parents were 1 in [4 billion * (4 billion - 1)]. These are very low probabilities, so low in fact that I could claim that you weren't born. Take this analogy to all of the possible planets in the Universe that would be hospitable to earth like life. It really isn't that improbable.
quote: It might be worth mentioning that therre are thousands of christian scientists that work within evolutionary biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Natural mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection are capable of producing novel enzymes and proteins. This is all that is needed for evolution to occur. For instance, the nylon bug. Also, genetic algorithms are able to construct things associated with human design, such as a radio circuit. The process of random variation and selection are able to create design. Now, can you give me one instance of an OBSERVED CHANGE in biological design due to the intelligent agent responsible for life on earth? Can you even give us evidence of the designer outside of the design? Or do we have to take this on faith?
quote: Evolution doesn't deal with the beginnings of life, that is abiogenesis. The theories of evolution would not be changed if an alien deposited bacteria on earth and that bacteria evolved into the biodiversity we see today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Can you please show me where in Newton's laws that God is required for them to work? Can you please show me one theory used in science today, put forth by Newton or anyone else in science, that requires the interference of supernatural powers for the theory to work? If not, then the religious beliefs of these scientists does not enter their science as IDer's seem to believe. I don't care if a scientist invokes God, but their theories should not rely on the input of a supernatural deity as ID theories do.
quote: If you remove one piece of the evolved lac operon then the whole system won't work. That makes it IC. Secondly, it was observed to evolve through mutation and natural selection. Therefore, IC systems are evolvable. Reference: http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: And yet a new system was constructed using just mutations and selection, something that IDists like yourself claim can't occur in IC systems. Therefore, mutations and selection are all that is needed. Secondly, Behe likes to cry foul every time an experiment is done. No matter the outcome he claims that it is only the result of intelligent intervention. This is a poor claim, since then ID theories are themselves are obtained through intelligent intervention and can not detect natural mechanisms. If ID is incapable of detecting natural mechanisms then they can not claim that natural mechanisms are insufficient.
quote: What evidence? That Hall relied on a gene having a similar active site? Excuse me, but the gene didn't work without being mutated, that the gene was previously used for another purpose besides lactase production? That sounds like a pretty weak argument to me. That he relied on IPTG to shut down the old lac operon? Of course he would, so that a new system would evolve. That the new system used an existing permease? Of course it would, that is how evolution works, through coopting existing systems such as the type III transport system being part of the bacterial flagellum. Everything that Hall did is equivalent to natural pressures that real bacteria face when they lack a control mechanism for lactase production. Behe's only real complaint is that Hall shows something that Behe believes, through faith, is impossible.
quote: Neither does anything from "Darwin's Black Box". And, Hall's paper does exist in the peer reviewed literature: EVOLUTION OF A REGULATED OPERON IN THE LABORATORY | Genetics | Oxford Academic . Hall's work stands on it's own and has yet to be refuted by Behe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, it was luck. That is why they call it random. Start with a billion bacteria and you are sure to come up with a beneficial mutation at some point. Also, can you name all of the other possible loci that would have resulted in the same enzymatic activity? I sure can't, but you seem to think that this was the only possible mutation. Care to show us how you came to that conclusion?
quote: What IDer's don't understand is that complexity is not a problem for evolution. However, it is a problem for IDer's since there is excessive complexity in biological designs compared to observed human constructs. Somehow IDer's forgot that Rube Goldberg's comics were meant to be funny because they were more complex than was necessary for the job they were doing. Behe thinks that Goldberg like machines display intelligent design when in fact they display unintelligent design.
quote: Uhh, can you you point me to the volumes of ID papers and experiments in the peer reviewed journals? Can you point me to the methodology that they use to detect design AND non-design in genetic systems? Can you point me to the experiments that they have done to test ID theory?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: The information they have is no different than the information found in a single, inorganic carbon atom. It is chemical information, not abstract information such as human language or computer code. So you are saying that random mutations and selection are all that is necessary as long as DNA of some kind is present. Great, then you agree with evolutionists that no other kind of intervention is needed. What you are saying is that all that is needed is atoms. Therefore, for life to arise all we need are atoms. This is what abiogenesis researchers have been saying all along. This is what evolutionists have been saying all along. Nature is all that is needed, no matter the origin of nature.
quote: It came from the formation of atoms. The formation of atoms is due to quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations are not bound by time or space, therefore they are outside of space/time. Quantum fluctuations have been observed to create matter and atoms throught the Cassimir effect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: No, it is not crap, it is observation. Does carbon require information to form carbon dioxide when it reacts with heat and oxygen? Does carbon require information to form carbohydrates when it reacts with hydrogen and oxygen? Does carbon need information to form into nucleotides and form polymers through the binding of pyrophosphates? If not, then the production of an RNA molecule through simple, non-information containing chemical reactions can result in a cyclic chemical reaction. If no information is needed for a catalytic RNA molecule to form, then replicating reactions, and therefore the begining of life, do not need information to get started. Once you have a replicating chemical reaction with RNA then evolution takes over and creates complexity through variation and selection. Life is a chemical reaction. Can you show me any part of biological life that is not governed by chemistry or physics?
quote: Well, if Bill Gates says so it must be true (rolls eyes). Give me a break. You will have to actually form an argument instead of relying on appeals to authority (and poor authorities at that).
quote: Great, let's run an experiment. I will post two different DNA sequences. One will be random (made up by myself) and another will be from an organism. Your task is to tell me which one is from an organism and which one is random. Also, you must show me the criteria or theories that you used to come to your conclusions. Ready? Oh, and no cheating, you can't look up either sequence using an online database. Sequence A: tgaaataaac ctgggatacc taggatttaa Sequence B: tgggattttg cttcaaaata tccaaaaaaa Could you also show me what parts are programmed and what they are programmed to do when the organism is met with new selective pressures?
quote: So how did the first designers come about? If the first designers did not come about through purely natural mechanisms, how did they come about and what evidence do you have to support their origins?
quote: The information on my hard drive is not chemical, it is abstract computer code. It only contains information because human intelligences have agreed on a certain syntax and rules. To an alien, there would be zero information on my hard drive. Therefore, information only exists because humans organize it to make it appear. The information in genomes is a human contrivance due to our ability to organize data.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024